This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: how canonical are template names?
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Cc: gdb <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Date: 10 Jan 2003 15:47:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: how canonical are template names?
- References: <ro1u1ggd6mo.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU><3E1F582E.2040408@apple.com>
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:33:02 -0800, Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> said:
> One goal for all GDB expression and type evaluation is to pass the
> cut-n-paste test - the debugger should be able to take anything in
> the source code and come up with the same interpretation as the
> compiler. Anything less is a quick trip to user hell - manually
> expanding macros, trying to guess how to phrase a cast, executing
> function bodies line by line because function calls don't work.
> Of course, we'll always fall short of the ideal. In the specific
> cases you mention, it sounds like some parser smartening is in
> order, and all the faults should be PRs.
I agree with all of this.
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu